Posts

Civil Procedure: Juul Labs, Inc. and Others v MFP Enterprises Ltd.

Image
A Person using a Juul Device Author Sarah Johnson   Licence CC BY 2,0   Source Wikipedia Juul   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mann)  Juul Labs, Inc and others v MFP Enterprises Ltd (t/a 'Smoke Nation' and others) [2020] EWHC 3380 (Pat) (10 Dec 2020) This was an application for summary as well as default judgment against defendants that had not acknowledged service of the claim form or particulars of claim .  Such applications are rare because CPR 24.4 (1) prohibits a claimant from applying for summary judgment until the defendant against whom the application is made has filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence unless the court has given permission or a practice direction provides otherwise. The circumstances in which a court may give permission were considered by Mr Justice Bryan in The European Union and another v The Syrian Arab Republic [2018] EWHC 1712 (Comm) (29 June 2018) and Mr Justice Hensaw in DVB Bank SE v Vega Marine Ltd and others [2020] EWH

Joint Copyright - The Retrial in Martin and Another v Kogan

Image
Meryl Streep who acted the lead role in Florence Foster Jenkins Author Glynn Lowe   Licence CC BY 2.0   Source  Wikipedia Florence Foster Jenkins    Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Martin and another v Kogan [2021] EWHC 24 (Ch) (11 Jan 2021) This was the retrial of an action by the screenwriter, Nick Martin, for a declaration that he was the sole author of the screenplay for the film Florence Foster Jenkins   and a counterclaim by Julia Kagan for a declaration against Mr Martin and the companies that had funded and made the film that she was a joint author and thus a joint owner of the copyright in the screenplay and relief for infringement of her copyright and moral rights.  The action and counterclaim had previously come on before Judge Hacon who found for Mr Martin in Martin and Another v Kogan [2017] EWHC 2927 (IPEC) (22 Nov 2017).  Ms Kogan appealed to the Court of Appeal which ordered a new trial before a different judge (see  Martin and

Patents: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd v Flexicare Medical Ltd

Image
Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd v Flexicare Medical Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 3282 (Pat) (8 Dec 2020) This was an action for the infringement of European patent (UK)  No 2 025 359 B1  and a counterclaim for revocation. The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Meade who tried them on 3, 4 and 19 Nov 2020. His lordship delivered his judgment on 8 Dec 2020. The learned judge held at paragraph [226] of his judgment that the patent was valid and that it had been infringed. The Patent The patent had been granted for components for breathing circuits.  The abstract is as follows: "A breathing circuit component (4) includes an inlet, an outlet and an enclosing wall (1). The enclosing wall (1) defines a gases passageway between the inlet and the outlet. At least a region (2,3) of the enclosing wall is formed from a breathable material that allows the passage of water vapour without allowing the passage of liquid water or r

Community Designs: Rothy's Inc v Giesswein Walkwaren AG

Image
Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Mr David Stone)  Rothy's Inc v Giesswein Walkwaren AG  [2020] EWHC 3391 (IPEC) (16 Dec 2020) This is a case about the design of shoes which is more interesting than many of the other designs that have come before the courts recently.  It is also possibly the last time an English court will have sat as a Community design court.  Mr David Stone, who tried the case as a deputy judge of the High Court, remarked at paragraph [9] of his judgment t hat   "As things currently stand, this Court will be unable to sit as a Community Design Court after 11pm UK time on 31 December 2020, given the current end date to the transition period following the UK's departure from the European Union." The Issues The claimant company,  Rothy's Inc. ("Rothy's"), is the registered proprietor of  registered Community design number 4500932-0002 for shoes  ("the RCD").  It also claimed to be entitled to an unregist

Patents: The Janger Ltd v Tesco Plc

Image
Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Douglas Campbell QC)  The Janger Ltd v Tesco Plc [2020] EWHC 3450 (IPEC) (16 Dec 2020 ) This was a patent infringement claim. The Janger Ltd, , ("Janger") sued Tesco Plc  ("Tesco") for patent infringement.  The patent in suit was for a hangable garden hook which was granted under number  GB2552562B ,  Janger accused Tesco of infringing claims 1, 4 and 5  by using, keeping, offering to dispose of and disposing of certain hangers known as the Meetic hangers. Tesco admitted that those hangers infringed claims 1, 4 and 5 but contended that those claims were invalid for want of novelty and inventive step. The action came on for trial before Mr Recorder Campbell QC sitting as a judge of the High Court on 3 and 4 Nov 2020. By his judgment of 16 Dec 2020, the learned recorder found that claim 1 had been anticipated and claims 4 and 5 were obvious. The Basics A patent is a monopoly of a new invention that can last up

The Bentley Appeal: Bentley Motors Limited v Bentley 1962 Limited and another

Image
Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison and Arnold and Mr Justice Marcus Smith) Bentley Motors Limited v Bentley 1962 Limited and another [2020] EWCA Civ 1726 (16 Dec2020) This was an appeal by Bentley Motors Limited against Judge Hacon's decision in Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd [2019] EWHC 2925 (Ch) (1 Nov 2019) which I discussed in Trade Marks - Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd.   on 3 Nov 2019.  In that decision, the learned judge held that Bentley Motors had infringed trade mark numbers  1180215 ,    2177779A  and  2505233  by marketing and distributing clothing and headgear with the word "BENTLEY" in combination with the motor company's winged "B" emblem. The above picture is an example of the use of the combination to which the claimants objected. Grounds of Appeal Bentley Motors' grounds of appeal were as follows.  First, the judge had been wrong to hold that the average consumer of clothing an